Slate excerpts Hitchens’s new anti-religion screed
posted at 6:54 pm on April 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
I’m in blog limbo at the moment, caught between important stories that you’ve already seen elsewhere, good news that requires little or no comment, and yet another sick-making item about Rosie and the celebrity cretin to whom she’s now playing confessor. Let’s hope he means it this time.
In lieu of all that, here’s Hitch railing eloquently and obnoxiously against religion. I’m like a kid on Christmas morning! — so to speak. Don’t worry, I won’t quote it; please do skip it if the subject doesn’t interest you, although judging by the number of comments in the religion threads this week, it really, really does. There’s the link, to take or leave as you see fit.
For the record, even I find him a bit strident.
In the interests of equal time, I’ll pass along a Christian book recommendation from our pal KP — “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony,” by Richard Bauckham. It examines the gospels from an evidentiary standpoint, to gauge how credible they are as a record of actual events. Verdict: pretty credible. The book’s only available in hardcover at the moment, though, and KP tells me it’s a pretty dense read, so caveat emptor.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Arguable is not the word.
He was NOT a Christian and it’s a smear and a slander and libel against Christians to continue to repeat that lie.
No one is a Christian until he or she repents and becomes “born again in the spirit” and lives henceforth according to the Christ. It is not inheritable, each person must make that decision, anyone of any religion can choose it or not. Classic proof of non-inheritability is that wild-creature known ruefully by the townfolk as “the pastor’s son.”
A person can be raised in a Christian household, by parents who have chosen Christianity, and still not be a Christian.
Hitler also engaged in occult practices, which is expressly forbidden in the Bible, and identified as evil and despicable to God. That he targetted Jews, God’s Chosen People, is also a glaring sign that he had no respect or love for any of the Christian heritage and teachings. That he led an aggressive and murderous regime that was directly and indirectly responsible for millions of deaths should normally be sufficient proof that he didn’t know “Christian” from a hole in the ground, but people keep pushing it. It’s ugly and not right.
naliaka on April 26, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Hitler was a Christian. Arguably not a good Christian, to make an understatement. Naturally he was driven more by Nazism than religious beliefs, in the same way that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were driven by Communism than atheism.
dorkafork on April 26, 2007 at 12:45 PM
I think you are mincing words. Certainly Hitler has no love for Christianity or any other religion after he assumed power. As for the communist, they elevated the state to a God like level not too different from atheism.
docdave on April 26, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Hitler payed lip service to Christianity on a number of occasions. But his interest in peculiar mythology (like the whole Aryan thing) and even outright occultism tends to undermine the claim that he was, at least, any kind of typical Christian. It certainly makes it hard to lump him in with any established denomination.
At any rate, it’s clear that professed belief in Christianity does nothing to necessarily prevent one from behaving in ways antithetical to those beliefs, anyway. Hitler would simply be an extreme case. Whether it’s a priest molesting children or Bill Clinton committing adultery, it’s easy to find cases with which to argue that identification with religious morality has no more power over human behavior than identification with ethical beliefs derived in any other fashion.
Incidentally, I am now formally invoking Godwin’s Law.
Blacklake on April 26, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Rose & Docdave,
Janos is 100% correct when he says that early historians were not the same as their modern day counterparts. Egyptians, for instance, were quite fond of erasing dynasties and forgetting about losses in battle.
Josephus wasn’t an impartial historian, writing without bias and using only facts. That doesn’t take away from his work, but it must be viewed through the lens of the time.
Krydor on April 26, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Josephus wasn’t an impartial historian, writing without bias and using only facts. That doesn’t take away from his work, but it must be viewed through the lens of the time.
Krydor on April 26, 2007 at 3:05 PM
I think that no historian is totally impartial. That is why on any given historical topic, there are revisionists that have a different slant on past happenings.
docdave on April 26, 2007 at 3:28 PM
The argument that Josephus was not impartial is one that we really can’t know for absolute certain, but assuming that he was, I don’t see any thing in his statement that is pro or con. If he wasn’t a Christian, and no one seems to be saying that he is, there really would have been no reason for him to say anything other then what he said. All he did was record what others were saying. It appears rather neutral.
Rose on April 26, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Okay, I’ve heard some really stupid Scheiss on this blog over the past year, but above is maybe the dumbest yet
not worth arguing with and beneath contempt, but I applaud the two souls who tried to reason with a………..fool
dorkafork, do you even know what ‘understatement’ means? Did you read Mein Kampf? Adolf hated God and Christ and all religion, and created a puppet “German Christian” church that was to eventually push aside the Lutheran and other churches in the same way that the SS was meant to push aside the Wehrmacht
Janos Hunyadi on April 26, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Hitler was a Christian. Arguably not a good Christian, to make an understatement. Naturally he was driven more by Nazism than religious beliefs, in the same way that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were driven by Communism than atheism.
dorkafork on April 26, 2007 at 12:45 PM
OH no you diten?
sonnyspats1 on April 26, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Rose & Docdave,
(assuming you read this, I don’t think I’ll be answering simply because of where it is on the page)
Historians of that era either fluffed things up to make them seem important or seriously downplayed them if they went counter to their narrative.
I’m not saying Josephus was a Christian (which would be, well, dumb). All I’m saying is that if the miracles attributed to Jesus went on, and Josephus was made aware of them, he would have written them down. If he thought they were something important, there would have been serious embellshiment to make them more than what they seemed.
What is interesting is that I can find each and every miracle attributed to Jesus in other, older religions. The most accurate description of the early Church is Josephus, and he didn’t think it was too important to warrant more than a passing mention. Instead of worrying about how much Josephus was altered, I would be more concerned about how much the Bible was altered (and I was, so I read the stuff from the cutting room floor, then I abandoned organized religion, then I abandoned faith and went for reason).
Ancient histories cannot be read the same way one might read, erm, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich or something by Sir Winston. There was no sourcing, no fact chequing and no counterpoint. Modern historians have a bird trying to figure out the context of some of the ancient writings. Many are akin to propaganda and not factual.
Krydor on April 26, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Yes, I have. Have you? “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” Recognize that passage? There are many others like it if you bother to look.
You’re right, I most certainly did not. I did not bring it up. I am rebutting a false claim repeated by O’Reilly and a commenter here that Hitler was an atheist. When people play that game I will throw it right back in their faces. Think about how some of you are reacting when I said Hitler was a Christian. Then try and remember that before you make an ahistorical argument that he was an atheist. You can read more about it here, though you could just read Mein Kampf. You can find the full text online.
dorkafork on April 26, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2